search_programs

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool returns (a list of programs with specializations, profiles, and descriptions) and provides an example usage, which adds some context. However, it lacks details on error handling, pagination, rate limits, or authentication requirements, leaving gaps in behavioral understanding.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured with sections for purpose, use cases, return values, and an example. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. Some sentences could be more concise (e.g., the use cases list is slightly verbose), but overall, it efficiently conveys key information without unnecessary fluff.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides a good start with purpose, use cases, return format, and an example. However, it lacks details on parameter semantics for all parameters, error conditions, and behavioral traits like performance or limitations, making it incomplete for full contextual understanding.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It only mentions 'schooltype' and 'timespan' in the example, providing some semantics (e.g., 'GY' for high school, 'LATEST' for timespan). However, it does not explain 'typeOfSyllabus' or 'studyPathType', leaving two parameters without any description, which is insufficient given the low coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Sök efter gymnasieprogram och studievägar' (Search for high school programs and study paths). It specifies both the resource (programs/study paths) and the action (search), and distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_program_details' (which retrieves details of a specific program) by focusing on search functionality.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear usage contexts under 'ANVÄNDNINGSFALL' (use cases), such as study guidance, helping students choose programs, comparing study paths, and exploring specializations. It includes an example for high school programs. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives like 'search_adult_education' for non-high school programs.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.